樓宇滲水滋擾責任的認定？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：張秀玲及吳炳漢 對 鄭禮莊 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：廖子明法官、梁紹中法官、胡國興法官 - 判決日期：1999年4月9日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人吳炳漢先生與張秀玲女士是銅鑼灣百德新街唐寧大廈8樓B座業主，答辯人鄭禮莊先生是9樓B座業主。1993年初，上訴人發現其單位天花及牆壁有滲漏水漬，懷疑水源來自答辯人單位。雙方曾嘗試聯絡兆龍行（大廈更換喉管承辦商）及仲量行（測量師行）調查。仲量行於1993年4月6日提交報告，指出滲漏源於答辯人單位內去水喉與新裝污水渠接駁處問題。答辯人於1993年4月9日收到報告後，兆龍行於4月21日修妥滲漏。上訴人原在原訟法庭控告答辯人疏忽及滋擾，但被駁回，故提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點在於答辯人鄭禮莊先生是否構成法律上的「滋擾」(nuisance)，須對上訴人吳炳漢先生及張秀玲女士因滲水蒙受的損失負上法律責任。上訴人認為，答辯人獲悉滲漏投訴後未有及時採取行動，構成「採納滋擾」(adopting a nuisance)。答辯人則辯稱，滲漏原因為兆龍行「工藝不精」，且他在知悉滲漏根源後已迅速處理。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定，要構成法律上的「滋擾」，被控方必須「知道或應該知道」滋擾的存在或來源，並意圖騷擾鄰居，或在知情後不合理地延誤處理。本案中，滲漏原因複雜，答辯人在仲量行報告確認滲漏源於其單位前，無法被視為知情。在收到報告後，答辯人已在12天內安排修妥，此期間被認為合理，不構成不合理延誤。因此，答辯人並無意圖騷擾，亦未「採納滋擾」，不需為滲漏損失負責。法庭亦指出，兆龍行應負「工藝不精」的全責。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了英國上議院案例 *Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callaghan* [1940] AC 880，該案確立了若一方知道或應知道滋擾來源，而不採取合理行動消除，則可被視為「採納滋擾」(adopting a nuisance)。此外，亦引用了 *R v. Shorrock* [1994] QB 279，強調控方須證明被控滋擾一方知道或應知道滋擾的存在或來源。這些案例支持了法庭關於「知情」和「採納滋擾」的分析。 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院上訴法庭一致裁定駁回上訴，維持原審法庭的判決。上訴人吳炳漢先生及張秀玲女士的申索被拒絕，雙方各自負擔訴訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調在多層大廈滲水糾紛中，「滋擾」責任的認定，尤其是在「知情」和「不合理延誤」方面的舉證責任。法庭明確指出，除非上層業主知道或應知道滲漏源於其單位，並有不合理延誤處理，否則不應承擔滋擾責任。判詞亦建議業主間應合作尋找滲漏源頭，避免訴訟。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Cheung Sau Ling and Ng Ping Hon v Cheng Lai Chong - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Mayo JA, Hon Leong JA, Hon Woo J - Date of Judgment: 9 April 1999 ### Factual Background The appellants, Mr. Ng Ping Hon and Ms. Cheung Sau Ling, were owners of Flat B, 8/F, Downing Mansion, Causeway Bay. The respondent, Mr. Cheng Lai Chong, owned Flat B, 9/F. In early 1993, the appellants discovered water seepage in their unit's ceiling and walls, suspecting it originated from the respondent's unit. Both parties attempted to contact Shiu Loong Engineering (the building's pipe replacement contractor) and Jones Lang Wootton (surveyors) for investigation. Jones Lang Wootton's report on April 6, 1993, indicated the seepage was due to a faulty connection between the respondent's drainpipe and the newly installed external sewage pipe. After the respondent received the report on April 9, 1993, Shiu Loong Engineering repaired the seepage by April 21. The appellants' claim for negligence and nuisance in the Court of First Instance was dismissed, leading to this appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this appeal was whether the respondent, Mr. Cheng Lai Chong, was liable for "nuisance" and thus responsible for the appellants' losses due to water seepage. The appellants argued that the respondent's failure to act promptly after being notified of the seepage constituted "adopting a nuisance." The respondent contended that the seepage was caused by Shiu Loong Engineering's "poor workmanship" and that he had acted swiftly once the source of the seepage was identified. ### Ratio Decidendi The court ruled that for a legal nuisance to be established, the defendant must "know or ought to have known" of the existence or source of the nuisance, and either intended to disturb the neighbour or unreasonably delayed in addressing it after becoming aware. In this case, the seepage issue was complex, and the respondent could not be deemed to have known the source until Jones Lang Wootton's report confirmed it. Upon receiving the report, the respondent arranged for repairs within 12 days, which was considered a reasonable timeframe and did not constitute unreasonable delay. Therefore, the respondent had no intention to cause nuisance and did not "adopt the nuisance," thus not liable for the seepage damage. The court also noted that Shiu Loong Engineering was fully responsible for the "poor workmanship." ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited *Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callaghan* [1940] AC 880, which established that if a party knows or ought to know the source of a nuisance and fails to take reasonable steps to abate it, they may be deemed to have "adopted a nuisance." *R v. Shorrock* [1994] QB 279 was also cited, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove the defendant knew or ought to have known of the existence or source of the nuisance. These precedents supported the court's analysis of "knowledge" and "adopting a nuisance." ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Court of First Instance. The claims by the appellants, Mr. Ng Ping Hon and Ms. Cheung Sau Ling, were rejected, and both parties were ordered to bear their own costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the burden of proof regarding "knowledge" and "unreasonable delay" in determining liability for nuisance in multi-storey building water seepage disputes. The court clarified that an upstairs owner is not liable for nuisance unless they knew or ought to have known the seepage originated from their unit and unreasonably delayed in addressing it. The judgment also encourages cooperation among property owners to identify seepage sources and avoid litigation. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.